move_note

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond annotations: disclose non-atomicity, the exact ordering (destination written, then source unlinked), partial-destination cleanup on failure, refusal when src missing or dst exists, and the updated: refresh. These are exactly the behaviors an agent needs for a destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent mutation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense sentences with the mechanism and precondition front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause — atomicity caveat, ordering, cleanup, error conditions, hash check, metadata refresh — earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does so: success behavior, failure semantics, preconditions, atomicity guarantees, and side effects are all covered, on top of annotations that already flag destructiveness and non-idempotency.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value: expected_sha256 is described as being honored against src to reject stale moves, which clarifies concurrency intent beyond the schema's 'rejects stale moves' phrasing. Syntax-level detail of paths is left to the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (move/rename) plus the resource (a note) and even discloses the mechanism (copy+delete). An agent can immediately distinguish this from write_note, delete_note, or append_note in the sibling list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides concrete preconditions — errors if src is missing or dst exists — which tells the agent when the call will succeed, but never names alternatives (e.g., did you mean write_note + delete_note?) or states when to prefer this over them. Usage is implied rather than guided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.